Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout810 BortzIn re: Paul William Bortt STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 : File Docket: 87 -044 -C : Date Decided: July 12, 1991 Date Mailed: July 16, 1991 Before: Robert W. Brown, Chair Dennis C. Harrington, Vice Chair James M. Howley Daneen E. Reese Roy W. Wilt Austin M. Lee The State Ethics Commission received a complaint regarding a possible violation of the State Ethics Act, No. 170 of 1978, 65 P.S. 401 et. seq. Written notice, of the specific allegation(s) was served at the commencement of the investigation. A Findings Report was issued and served, upon completion of the investigation, which constituted the Complaint by the Investigation Division. An Answer was filed and a hearing was not held. The record is complete. This adjudication of the Commission is hereby issued which sets forth the individual Allegations, Findings of Fact, Discussion, Conclusions of Law and Order. This adjudication is final and will be made available as a public document fifteen days after issuance. However, reconsideration may be ,requested which will defer public release of this adjudication pending actin on the request by the Commission. A request for reconsideration, however, does not affect the finality of this adjudication. A reconsideration request must be received at this Commission within fifteen days of issuance and must include a detailed explanation of the reasons as to why reconsideration should be granted in conformity with 51 Pa. Code 52.38. The files in this case will remain confidential in accordance with Section 8(a) of Act 170 of 1978 during the fifteen day period and no one unless the right to challenge this Order is waived, may violate confidentiality does not preclude discussing this case with an attorney at law. Any person who violates confidentiality of the Ethics Act is guilty of a misdemeanor subject to a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year, 65 P.S. 409(e). i 3 . . cry: 1"-• r • • 7. • . _ • • •` • C en t. .• 1 • t. i lln.i r 7, er,„77: I. ALLEGATION: II. FINDINGS: ADJUDICATION That you, Mayor of the City of Uniontown and candidate for re- election, violated Section '3(4) of the rEthic's Act w' iioh prohibits a public employee or public official's use of office or confidential information gaiitbd through that office to obtain financial gain; and Section 3(b) of the Ethics Act which prohibits a public employee, public official or candidate from offering, .soliciting or accepting °. rtything of value based dh any understanding that the vote, official action or-judgement of the public official, public "employee, or• candidate will be influenced; when you directed the Chief of Police and other patrolmen• to distribute your campaign material during regular working hours to promote your campaign: Section 3.= Restricted Activities. (a) No public official 'or public employee shall use his public office or any confidential information received through his holding public office to obtain financial gain other than compensation provided by law for himself, a member of his immediate family, or a business with which he is associated. 65 P.S. 5403(a). Section 3(b) of the Ethics Act provides: (b) No person shall offeror give to a public official or public employee or candidate for public office or a member of his immediate family or a business with which he is associated, and no public official or public employee or candidate for public office shall solicit or accept, anything of value, including a gift, loan, political contribution, reward, or promise of future employment based on any understanding that the vote, official action, or judgment of the public official or public employee or candidate for public office would be influenced thereby. 65 P.S. 5403(b). 1. Paul Bortz served as Mayor of the City of Uniontown from 1984 through 1987. a. He ran for re- election in 1987 and was defeated. 2. Leonard Springer served as Chief of Police for the-Giety of Uniontown from December of 1984. 'Bartz, 47- 'Pa 9e 43 a. ice 'AIZEFS appointed :to this position by Paul Bortz. b. This appointment was approved by City Council. 3 During, the 198 election, Paul Bartz's opponent was Charles Machesky. 4. During the 1927_ election - . contest :between - Paul Bortz and Charles Macheskyi various police officers of the City of Uniontown were instructed to issue parking tickets to vehicles parked in violation ofEcity.. catdinances near Gentilcore's Confectionary. .Itathesky- waS'thi ettploe• 4f-; =that r•-q h ' b. The instructions to ticket said vehicles were is:giirAzDifram•vithio"ttio: li-66-4416prairtment either by ÷chteif•• orTA shift iupertPistin. 5. The police also ticketed vehicles parked in violation of city ordinanzes, anothr.'establi the Cabaret. a. Charles Charles Machesky was employed at this on a part-tittgat-basis.:-.2. b. The owners of this establishment supported Mr. 7f4ahesky''w 2ci .n rsgarG y c. ThEtAglattYLICtiCrtla-ttO manic:11es came from Wi tare %City zbepA=m the Mayornr fice. 3 Paper r. -- 7 1 " ,c ng 6. In relatiorritcs•diste imtionwrctfi thiP police department at Gentilcore's and the Cabaret, the police did not conce-ntrate. parki traktt/s. altPreheav; prior to beclawilirstru-qted-to dtrAscv7pritri.,o -ale election contest. - .;11.). . ir - nor' 1 •r shift 7. Harry David?. was An 3amplar;yeit af,..the UrittorreCww01.** police department irr'llrEal. Frt Spr_ a. He supported Paul Bortz and worked at the place of voting on election day. - .This was not•done atty time.the Ci..v of cmae- tr He handed out';claibmpar (Material iftaelbliii. mialyo;v• and kept sixth' miatel delek potiOe department offices. Bartz, x .87- 044 - - C Page 4 III. DISCUSSION: He was not instructed or asked to do this by anyone. A number of police department employees allowed Bortz's campaign signs to be placed at their residences. a. There was no overt pressure placed on the offices by Paul Bortz to place his signs on their property. Some officers were asked to post the signs by Chief Springer. 9. No 'police officer, other than Chief Springer and Henry: David, handed out Paul Bortz's campaign material or fund- raising tickets. 10. The police officers were required to deliver newspapers every morning to the mayor's residence and the residence of the mayo'r's father. - a. Instructions came to the offices to do so from the police chief. 11. Information obtained from Uniontown police offici`a1se' include the following: a. Undated, handwritten note, which states the following in regard to the delivery of'nelrspapers to Mayor Paul Bortz's father's house by the Police Department: Captain Campbell, Chief Springer called as to why Bortz's dad has not been getting a paper in the morning. See the night supervisor and see that he gets one. b. Borough of Police, Uniontown, Pennsylvania, complaint report, dated December 19, 1985 (8:00 a.m.). Chief Springer requested that Captain Campbell notify the mid -night shift Sergeant that he is in charge of taking the mayor and his father a newspaper please. Signed by Chief Springer. Paul Bortz, hereinafter Bortz, as the mayor of the City of Uniontown was a public official as that term is defined under the Ethics Act. 65 P.S. 402; 51 Pa. Code Section 1.1. As such, he is subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act and the restrictions therein are to him. Bortz, 87 -044 -C Page 5 u tAl� na£i$yL we_ r npt a that has filed a Mot�itlx W Dr iss. j Hgwgyer, 1 we 1s1 ,Qt iac4draas the MotiQ c diares. - the Ii4 dilatave =`� • Como a4,n lg 7i csltr• Wen "if _the aveanents .acre adc a las ' . does -no r -es a .� kssh A Yidtion of f-the ;Et- >bLian aw dor o�rs��' outlines. b�low. = t �� -ra t c' yard l mo h� vc. • Inita.ally 1 ,;... xoY ?thaw of this r :aileqattions in this case, . ,19� �relater.,i o , .. 1989 and the s sect: relaes to -Act ;170 of "This amendatory act shall not apply to violations committed i r x ,,r SrP s t d a tte et+ive at t and ca'uW ` 7.Ac:t1461 intt>nii. '. REM 43e` ` gove iVed7by ';the Prs? ;lid which :is. -continued in;:-erfei t for t '` iEpose �. jet..i4hle3cgrz were rnot..in ~force .. ° Ft& the;- - purtros4W this - .:4t1.14:P td etas 7committe tt %h11ei�ecctive �.dkatdk Af- tt, sz Apt i anyrtelements bf'• them -)3 .+ iat4on= iscurr°€d ri ,tie .get a.: .. s t. - _ �., Since the occurrences in this case transpired prior to the effective date .o. Apos.9 0'14W 26, 1989 we must app .y)t+he provisions ,cf Act. 170 i o,:fpdtoper t. 19381- L.1_$83. to. the '' Ethics Act w4t,_Z :: r under Sect $g (a4l ve;- this Commission has . determined :rt u of;gff4 @epubeiVtfLcial towobtaiu a financial gain for }unself or ?OP ?eg otr#i - = .and ate family orla busineSt frith 'which al tkel4p, assoca te4 Alg.Ah as uotz pxco,7ided for in lawytrgnsgrrrsses o ve provis p aa�tt Thuh„ -usea o by'•a public"tStticiaF' to f inapstg r gain which :3.sl nbt authortted - as - •part o!c hzi.s -nde i3Oaniztens4ti©n ; suRaso ?is itedAby Secti:on•' 3 (a)t {. Hbak /M @Cuteheon v. State t ips Commis$ions ,d77h.Pa.Beommw .Ct 466 - A:2(3 T1883); - ?acobet t y - 4 itate Ethics Comanission4ra09 Pa. Commw. Ct. 432 531 A.2d 536 (1987). Similarly, Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act would prohibit a public official /employee from using public office to advance his own }ntereste; Koaloy ArksrState Ethics Commission, 116 Pa. Commw. Ct. 19, 540"1.2d 1374 (IgT81 Likewise, a public official /employee may not use the status dor posi.tignEofe-,publekC offiee !.i opeFSbAa1L- advanta ' ge,, Huff , OP����fl>} 4$414$t L oViS ., �� - i t• : a.. _ Under Section 3(b) of the Ethics Act, quoted above, no public official /employee or cendiga ae. ,411- 4sa1beiVecot rece'3tve anytilitziqc6f value based upon the undera744tding ±that~ i i t . ib# -sir v , , gr or judgement would be infitien@daipheregbyh •:a' ? ec ^tion t� re is . office ux cI .- Section. 3 In the instant matter welinttstrdetexerirterwhetherriiktetzpalthcthe Uniontown,Mayor and candidate rEor -reelection violated either Section 3(a) or 3(b) of the Ethics Act relative to actions by the Police Chief and patrolman in distributing his campaign material during regular working hours. Bortz, 87 -044 -C Page 6 Factually, Bortz served as mayor of the City of Uniontown from 1984 through 1987 but lost his bid for reelection to Charles Machesky. During the 1987 election contest, various police officers who served • under Chief of Police, Leonard Springer, an appointee of Bortz, were 'instructed to issue parking tickets to vehicles parked in the vicinity of the Gentilcore's Confectionary and the Cabaret. Both of the foregoing establishments employed Mr. Machestky and the owners of the Cabaret in fact supported his candidacy. The record reflects that the police department did not target these two areas for parking ticket violations prior to the election contest. Harry David, an employee of. the Uniontown City police department in 1987 supported and worked for Bortz's election but such activity was not done on city time. In addition, other members of the police department did allow Bortz's campaign signs to be placed at their residence but such requests came from Chief Springer and not as a result of any overt pressure by Bortz. Finally, police officers were required to deliver newspapers to Bortz's and his father's residence, but those instructions came from the Police Chief's office. In applying the provisions of Sections 3(a) and 3(b) of the Ethics Act to the instant matter, we find that no violation of either section of law occurred based upon the record before us. As to Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act, there is no evidence to establish any use of office on the part of Bortz relative to the distribution of the campaign material by police officers during regular working hours. Likewise, under Section 3(b) of the Ethics Act, there is no evidence to indicate any understanding between Bortz and any other party relative to this allegation. Consequently, without a showing of the requisite use of office under Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act or an understanding under S ection 3(b) of the Ethics Act, which as noted has not been established, we find that Bortz did not violate either Section 3(a) of Section 3(b) of the Ethics Act. IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. Paul Bortz, as the mayor of the City of Uniontown, was a public official subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act. 2. Paul Bortz did not violate either Section 3(a) or 3(b) of the Ethics Act regarding the distribution of his campaign material during the 1987 mayoral election since there is no evidence to establish a use of office under Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act or that an understanding existed under Section 3(b) of the Ethics Act. In re: Paul William Bortz : File Docket: 87 -044 -C : Date Decided: July 12, 1991 : Date Mailed: July 16, 1991 ORDER No. 810 1. Paul Bortz as the mayor of the City of Uniontown did not violate either Section 3(a) or 3(b) of the Ethics Act regarding the distribution of his campaign material during the 1987 mayoral election since there is no evidence to establish a use of office under Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act or that an understanding existed under Section 3(b) of the Ethics Act. BY THE COMMISSION, / AL/ ko. .4u..„,„ ROBERT W.BROWN, CHAIR